Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Ted Cruz Launch: Good News for Evangelicals,
Bad News for GOP Elites

Bryan Fischer

Commentary by Julio Severo:When there is no candidate for you to give your vote, it is sad. Yet,
when there is one, it is joy. Ted Cruz launched his candidacy to the U.S.
presidency in the largest evangelical university in the world, Liberty
University, connected to Matt Barber, owner of the conservative website
Barbwire, where I am a columnist. In fact, the article below, written by Bryan
Fischer, was published by Barbwire. If Cruz actually reaches the end, this
election will be thrilling. Today, I dreamed that I was in an area where there
was a voting booth in the U.S. For some reason, I saw the first American voter
and after he had left the voting booth, his vote was put in my hand and I saw
that his vote was for Cruz. I was extremely glad in that moment. I cannot vote
in the U.S., but I will pray that Cruz may win and become president, becoming this
way, as Romans says, a “minister of God.” We are tired of seeing U.S.
presidents and politicians, true servants of Satan, facilitating the
international persecution of Christians. It is time for an evangelical as Ted
Cruz to win and change the anti-Christian and pro-sodomy policies of the U.S.
government. I pray also that as U.S. president he may do what no U.S. president
has ever done: TO
RECOGNIZE OFFICIALLY JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL OF ISRAEL! Ted Cruz has my
support!

Ted Cruz

Ted
Cruz sucked all the oxygen out of the room today with his official declaration
of his candidacy to be America’s next president.

He
stole a march on the rest of the field, who will now be scrambling to catch up.
It was a brilliant piece of political strategy.

By
making his first campaign appearance at Liberty University, the largest
evangelical school in the world, Cruz was also sending a powerful message to
the conservative Christian base: “I’m one of you.” He was telling evangelicals
that they are his base. He openly embraced evangelicals in a way we have not
seen since the days of Ronald Reagan.

It’s
impossible for a Republican to win the nomination or the presidency without the
enthusiastic support of the evangelical base. You can ask Romney and McCain all
about that. Cruz will generate the kind of fervor and energy among the
confessing evangelicals that’s required to win. He in fact may lock up the
evangelical bloc before the other conservatives are even out of the gate.

Four
million conservative voters stayed home in 2012 and in so doing handed the
election to Barack Obama. Cruz will draw those four million conservatives to
the polls, and they will bring their friends with them. Lots of them.

Political
consultants, who have made an astonishing amount of money telling Republicans
how to lose one election after another, have got it all wrong on the precious
“independents.” Their template is that there are Republicans on the right,
Democrats on the left, with all the independents somewhere in between.

What
this template completely fails to account for is the number of independents who
are to the right of today’s mushy-middle GOP establishment. They are
independent, not because the Republican Party is too conservative for them, but
because it is not conservative enough.

To
borrow from Ronald Reagan, they didn’t leave the Republican Party, the
Republican Party left them. Ted Cruz will bring the party back to them and he
will bring them back to the party. He will win the independents who count, the
ones who can put the Republicans in the win column in 2016.

It
will be fascinating to watch the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth
among the GOP establishment should Cruz’s candidacy take flight. We will soon
find out if there is enough room for Ted Cruz in their precious “Big Tent.”
Their tent may prove to be a lot smaller than they want us to believe.

The
GOP elites have always taken evangelical voters for granted. They have
condescendingly thrown us a bone or two in the platform, then patted us on the
head and told us to go to our rooms and be seen and not heard. They have
assumed we will vote GOP because we have no other place to go.

Those
days will be over with a Cruz nomination. It will be the GOP establishment that
will have no place to go. Evangelicals will say it’s about time the elites have
to hold their noses and vote for our guy for a change.

In
its profile of Ted Cruz, the New York Times said
that GOP elites are “skeptical of and angry with (Ted) Cruz.” Sounds like he
just might be the guy we’re looking for.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Highlights in the Brazilian week, March 15-20

Sunday (15), Brazilian society was marked by
protests against Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Massive demonstrations
protested against corruption and called for her impeachment.

Even
though the Rousseff administration has a prominent Socialist history of
pro-abortion and pro-sodomy activism since 2011, the protests focused,
according to Reuters, on “a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption.”

The
massive demonstrations included no protests against abortion and the homosexual
agenda. Pro-abortion and pro-sodomy socialists also protested against Rousseff.

Monday (16), the Brazilian media run headlines
about former Brazilian presidential candidate Levy Fidelix, condemned to pay a fine of R$ 1 million
(over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement, because
he had made statements in defense of family and children against the homosexual
agenda. There was no massive or even small demonstration in his support.
Representative Marco Feliciano, an evangelical minister, was the only prominent
Brazilian figure to support Fidelix, a Catholic.

Thursday (19), Brazilian Supreme Court Justice
Cármen Lúcia rejected an appeal from prosecutors who wanted to protect children
from adoption by homosexual couples in the state of Paraná.

In
her ruling, Justice Lúcia argued that the concept of Family cannot be
restricted because of homoerotic couples, according to Exame magazine.

In
her view, the concept of Family, with norms of visibility, continuity and
stability, can also be applied to same-sex individuals.

Because
this is a ruling coming from the highest Brazilian court, it is a major defeat
for efforts to protect children from ideological, moral, spiritual and even
physical abuse.

Friday (20), Rep. Marco Feliciano decried a decision by Prosecutor Promotor Thiago, who wants
shopping malls bathrooms in the Federal District, where Brasilia is located, to
be available to people not according to their biological sex, but according to
their “gender identity.” His decision follows a new resolution from the Human
Rights National Council of the Rousseff administration.

Feliciano
asked, “What will people, who use bathrooms and dressing-rooms, feel when they
see there an individual from the opposite sex? Are not they going to be embarrassed?
What about the risk of molestation?”

He
also asked, “Where are feminists? This resolution exposes women to
embarrassment and dangers. What about malicious men and boys choosing to
frequent ladies’ rooms?”

Last
week, Feliciano introduced two bills addressing these issues. If passed, they
will suspend the federal resolution.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist
Counter-Revolution?

Socialist
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff faced, according to FoxNews, massive
demonstrations protesting against corruption and calling for her impeachment
last Sunday (March 15).

Different
from FoxNews, which is a huge conservative news outlet, Cliff Kincaid announced
in his small outlet that the Brazilian demonstrations were an “anti-Marxist
counter-revolution.”

Kincaid
said, “Such
a development would be a major blow to the anti-American left in Latin America,
which has been operating since 1990 under the rubric of the São Paulo Forum, a
pro-communist movement started by Rousseff’s predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula de
Silva, and Fidel Castro.”

The
Brazilian protests were not about Marxism. Any anti-Marxism expression was an
isolated event. The protests were, according to Reuters, about “a sluggish
economy, rising prices and corruption.”

When
Brazilians are discontent, they protest. The same demonstrators would protest
Barack Obama if discontent with him.

Many
Brazilians who live in the U.S. are discontent with Rousseff, but not with
Obama.

Last
year, Obama announced
a major amnesty benefiting millions of immigrants. Many of those benefited are
Brazilians, who are fleeing from the leftist hell in Brazil, but by being aided
by Obama, they are also aiding to produce a leftist hell in the U.S.

A
Brazilian friend helped spread Kincaid’s article about an alleged “anti-Marxist
counter-revolution” in Brazil. Frequently, he attacks Rousseff, because she is
a Marxist. But he praised Obama’s amnesty. I told him that conservative
Americans did not like Obama’s amnesty because it is a handout. He answered
that the important thing is Brazilian immigrants need it and so he praised
such wonderful policy for immigrants.

In
general terms, this is the profile of an “anti-Marxist” Brazilian in Kincaid’s
piece.

A
true anti-Marxist counter-revolution would be characterized especially by a
moral fight against two fundamental banners of the U.S. and Brazilian Left:
abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Yet,
a fight against abortion and the tyrannical homosexual agenda had no place in
what Kincaid termed “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” in Brazil.

In
fact, Monday (March 16), just one day after the massive demonstrations,
Catholic Levy Fidelix, a former Brazilian presidential candidate, was condemned
to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed
by the LGBT movement. There was no massive or even small demonstration in his
support.

He
was condemned because in the last Brazilian presidential election he made
pro-family declarations. The other main contenders — Dilma Rousseff, Aécio
Neves and Marina Silva — also lambasted him for his
pro-family view.

Evangelical
Marina was the candidate of the Brazilian Socialist Party, and was
heavily involved in the anti-Rousseff protests. Does a socialist fighting a socialist
look like an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

Because
he knew I am a Brazilian, a minister with some evangelical churches in the U.S.
praised Silva, saying that she is a conservative evangelical politician who
absolutely fights abortion and the gay agenda. I asked him where he had read
it, because in her history, Silva never undertook such fight. I emphasized that
she always was leftwing. He said that he had read about her strong evangelical “conservatism”
in the U.S. mainstream media.

It is
correct to say that Obama and Rousseff are Marxist. But they are not fellows.
Rousseff and her administration have had a very hard time with Obama and his
administration because of NSA and its economic espionage against Brazil.

There
is a big difference between pro-U.S. Marxists and anti-U.S. Marxists. Neves is
in the former group; Rousseff is in the latter one. Yet, Rousseff is not
totally anti-U.S. Her administration has faithfully supported every pro-sodomy
measure by the U.S. in the United Nations.

Fidel Castro and Aécio Neves

There
is a picture of Neves with Fidel Castro. Even so, he and Marina Silva, a
radical environmentalist, were portrayed in the U.S. mainstream media as
“conservative.” They were the leading political figures in the massive
demonstrations.

In
this point, you could think then that the massive protests were pro-U.S. and
pro-Obama Marxists protesting anti-U.S. Marxists. Hardly an “anti-Marxist
counter-revolution”!

Basically,
Brazilians protesting Rousseff because of rising prices would also protest
Obama if he backtracked in his amnesty policy benefiting millions of
immigrants, including Brazilians. While Obama does not backtrack in his
handout, Brazilian immigrants in the U.S. will keep attacking only Rousseff.

What
about if Socialist Aécio Neves and environmentalist Marina Silva agreed to
denounce the São Paulo Forum to destroy Rousseff’s socialist party, the Workers’
Party? Would Marxism be politically destroyed in Brazil? No. There is a bigger
threat: the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (NCBB).

Professor
Hermes Rodrigues Nery, a prominent Catholic pro-life leader in Brazil, said
recently that NCBB is “an extension of the São Paulo Forum.” It was a generous
charge.

Actually,
Marxist NCBB is credited, by many Catholic conservative and pro-life leaders,
as the original creator of the Workers’ Party. And as a mother nurses her baby,
NCBB nursed its red monster.

Above
all, long before the São Paulo Forum’s birth, there was a NCBB guiding Brazil,
the largest Catholic nation in the world, into socialism.

Ignoring
the Brazilian reality, Cliff Kincaid said, “The protests in Brazil are giving
hope to those who see an opportunity to defeat Marxism in the Western
hemisphere.”

If
Brazil is the best example of an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” that Kincaid
is able to see, then it is no wonder that Obama is at the White House.

Immediately
after Rousseff’s reelection, her opponents made
a petition in the White House asking help from Obama. Nowhere the
petition mentioned the threat of abortion policies and the homosexual agenda.
But it mentioned “São Paulo Forum” and said, “We call a White House position in
relation to communist expansion in Latin America.”

Oh,
my God! Does people asking help from a socialist produce an “anti-Marxist
counter-revolution”?

The
most important Marxist today is at the White House. Brazilian philosopher Olavo
de Carvalho, quoted often by Kincaid, said recently: “Because I am just a legal
resident and not an American citizen, I cannot get involved actively in the
anti-Obama fight, but I believe that this fight is the ONLY thing that matters
today.”

The
most important fight — against Obama and his wicked policies — has been one of
the main focuses of my ministry, because the Obama administration is impacting
the whole world. I would not avoid this calling even if threatened of losing a
chance to get a U.S. citizenship.

Of course,
the other huge threat is Islam, the greatest murder machine
in the history. Its main
victims have been Christians.

While
Kincaid and other ultranationalist Americans are heavily busy attacking Russia,
Obama and neocons are trying to destroy pro-family cultures by advancing their
Marxist revolution and imposing around the world their pro-sodomy, pro-Marxism,
pro-abortion and pro-Islam policies.

To denounce,
expose and fight Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-sodomy and pro-Islam Marxist revolution
— that is the ONLY thing that matters today.

The
condemnation, delivered Friday (March 14), deals with declarations that
Catholic Fidelix made in an interview in a TV show September 28, 2014, where he
said:

“The large intestine does not reproduce…
How can I, a family man and a grandfather, be afraid of losing votes? I prefer
not having such votes, but to be a moral father and a moral grandfather to
teach his child, to instruct his grandchild. Let us end this. I just read that the
Holy Father, the Pope, expelled a pedophile from the Vatican. He did very well.
He is right! We train our children all their lives in a religious way so that
they may really find a good family way.”

Fidelix
also recommended psychological treatment for homosexuals and he said that
homosexuals should be kept away from families and their children.

In
that time, the TV show also interviewed the other presidential candidates, who did
not like Fidelix’s view.

Workers’
Party candidate Dilma Rousseff, who eventually won the presidential election,
said about his view: “I have already said that I am against homophobia and I
think Brazil has reached such a degree of civility that we cannot live together
with acts and words of discrimination leading to violence. I think that
homophobia should be outlawed.” Rousseff is a leftist with Venezuelan and Cuban
connections.

Brazilian
Socialist Party candidate Marina Silva said that the declarations of Levy
Fidelix were “homophobic and unacceptable in any circumstance.” In the TV show,
she had committed herself to mobilize her party, Rede Sustentabilidade
(Sustainability Network), to carry on a lawsuit against Fidelix for “homophobia.”
Strangely, Silva was eventually portrayed, by a propaganda from an unknown
source, as “conservative” in the U.S. media, which was silent on Fidelix and
his much more conservative stances.

PSDB
candidate Aécio Neves moaned about Fidelix’s declarations, saying, “We
absolutely repel those declarations. And as I have already said more than once,
in my view all kind of discrimination is crime. Homophobia too.”

Axelrod
was brought to Brazil with the help of former President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso, also known by his initials FHC — who is close to former US President
Bill Clinton. FHC founded PDSB, the Brazilian Social Democrat Party, whose
presidential candidate was Neves.

Longtime
Obama adviser Axelrod wrote in his new biography, “Believer: My Forty Years in
Politics,” that Obama followed his
advice that he should not declare his real position on gay “marriage”
so he could avoid opposition from African American religious leaders and others
to get elected president in 2008. He said Obama “modified his position” to say
he supported civil unions — but not same-sex “marriage.”

Possibly,
Axelrod taught his Brazilian candidate to lie about the same issues. Even so,
both Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Aécio Neves were portrayed as “conservative”
by the mainstream media in the U.S. In this point, I wonder why the U.S. media
labels Brazilian leftist politicians as “conservative” if all of them opposed
and attacked Fidelix and his anti-sodomy views.

Axelrod’s
candidate lost, but the homosexual agenda not. To the detriment of moral
issues, especially a resistance to the advance of homosexual tyranny, the focus
of political battles has been economic.

Yesterday
(March 15), according to Reuters,
“Over one million demonstrators marched in cities and towns across Brazil on
Sunday to protest a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption — and to
call for the impeachment of leftist President Dilma Rousseff.”

Among
those opposing Rousseff were Neves and Marina Silva.

Today
(March 16), with Brazilian headlines about the Fidelix condemnation, there was no
demonstration, by Neves or Silva, to defend Fidelix’s free speech.

In an
ideal world, he would not have been condemned, and Rousseff, Neves and Silva
would see millions of demonstrators marching against their leftist agendas.

The
São Paulo Supreme Court said that Fidelix’s declarations exceeded the limits of
free speech and reflected hate speech. In its ruling, the court added,
“[Fidelix’s declarations] reflect a sad Brazilian reality of violence and
discrimination against this population group. We, the public authority, have
the fundamental responsibility to protect human dignity.”

Now,
homosexual vice equals “human dignity.”

The
lawsuit filed by the LGBT movement also wants Fidelix and his party to pay all
expenses for the production of a TV show promoting homosexual rights. Moreover,
it imposes a daily fine of R$ 500,000 for each day of judicial order breach.

During
the September TV show, where Fidelix made his declarations, a member of Marina
Silva’s Brazilian Socialist Party said: The worst thing is that most
constituency thinks as Fidelix does.

Today,
Fidelix has been fined R$ 1 million for voicing a view against the obvious
homosexual depravity. Tomorrow, ministers and priests and their members may be
the next.

If
the Brazilian people do not make demonstrations for Fidelix’s free speech, Cuba,
Venezuela, Axelrod, Obama and other antifamily radicals are going to keep in
the Brazilian presidency individuals committed to homosexual agenda.

Monday, March 09, 2015

War between Christian Nations and Muslim
Nations: A Table Talk between an American Economist and Young Muslims in
Indonesia

By Julio
Severo

In
the early 1970s, economist John Perkins was in Indonesia and had an interesting
table talk with some young Muslims, reported in his book “Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man [Berrett-Koehler Publishers: 2004], pp. 45-46.”

Their
talk:

Muslim
young woman: “Back in the fifties
he [Arnold Toynbee] predicted that the real war in the next century would not
be between Communists and capitalists, but between Christians and Muslims.”

Perkins:
“Arnold Toynbee said that?” I was
stunned.

Muslim
young woman: “Yes. Read
Civilization on Trial and The World and the West.”

Perkins:
“But why should there be such
animosity between Muslims and Christians?” I asked.

Looks were
exchanged around the table. They appeared to find it hard to believe that I
could ask such a foolish question.

Muslim
young woman: “Because,” she said
slowly, as though addressing someone slow-witted or hard of hearing, “the
West—especially its leader, the U.S. —is determined to take control of all the
world, to become the greatest empire in history. It has already gotten very
close to succeeding. The Soviet Union currently stands in its way, but the
Soviets will not endure. Toynbee could see that. They have no religion, no
faith, no substance behind their ideology. History demonstrates that
faith—soul, a belief in higher powers—is essential. We Muslims have it. We have
it more than anyone else in the world, even more than the Christians. So we
wait. We grow strong.”

Muslim
young man: “We will take our
time,” one of the men chimed in, “and then like a snake we will strike.”

These
young Muslims could see, and Toynbee could see too, according to them, the fall
of the Soviet Union. They could see far beyond too: a future battle between the
Islamic world and the Christian world.

John
Perkins was, according to his own book, in Indonesia in a special operation. He
had been hired as an EHM (Economic Hit Man), to persuade countries to take out
loans worth billions of dollars, often to pay for infrastructure projects that
the EHMs themselves recommend, making these countries to incur debts they would
never be able to pay off.

Yet,
the biggest ever special operation, which Perkins could not envision, was
Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama
also lived in Indonesia, in the late 1960s, because his mother, Stanley Ann
Dunham, after divorcing Barack Obama Sr. (a Marxist Muslim), moved to Indonesia
after marrying another Muslim: Indonesian Lolo Soetoro.

According
to Wayne Madsen, not only Dunham worked to CIA,
including in a cover operation in Indonesia, but her son, today’s President
Obama, was a CIA creation.

If
this is so, the real war predicted by Toynbee to happen in our century between
Christian nations and Muslim nations will never happen.

With
Obama as U.S. president, the U.S. government and military power have been
surrendering themselves more and more to Muslim interests. Yet, this
selling-out did not begin today. Perkins exposes not only that the U.S. and
Saudi Arabia have had massive financial connections since the 1970s, but also
that Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of terrorist financing. This is, the most
important Muslim ally of America is the most important financing source of
Islamic terrorism around the world.

How
did “Christian” America and Europe come to succumb to Islamic petrodollars?

Because
of massive Saudi and other Muslim financial investments in Europe, especially
from Islamic dictatorships, Europeans have been surrendering themselves to a
relentless Islamic invasion, disguised as immigration.

Islamic
invasion is winning: at the White House, in Europe, etc.

By
the way, no war between Christian nations and Muslim nations will be necessary,
because the Christian world has been religiously weak and the Muslim world has
been religiously strong. Obama Hussein Obama at the White House is evidence of
a debilitated Christianity and strengthened Islam.

The
Islamic world, especially Saudi Arabia, would never accept a pro-Christian
president with a Christian name. But America, and the Western world, has
welcomed a pro-Islam president with a Muslim name. Who is losing? Who is
winning?

All
of them (Perkins and the young Muslims) would have been utterly stunned if told
of a 21-century Western world, especially the U.S., leading an aggressive
international propaganda campaign presenting Islam — the greatest murder
machine in history — as a “religion of peace.”

A
“peace” bought by petrodollars. Its real cost is the slow death of the
Christian culture in the U.S. and Europe.

There
is a real ongoing war against the Christian civilization and Christian
populations, including through Islamic terrorism, but there have been no
fighting back from nations with a Christian past, especially America (the
largest Protestant nation in the world) and Brazil (the largest Catholic nation
in the world).

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Russia vs. the LGBT Globalists

A Climate of Hate and Fear

By Dr.
Scott Lively

Whenever
and wherever normal people resist the mainstreaming of homosexuality, the LGBT
movement and its allies attribute that resistance to “a climate of hate and
fear” orchestrated by evil “homophobes” who exploit the prejudices of the
ignorant by telling lies about “gay and lesbian people” who “just want equal
rights.” They predict a wave a violence against “sexual minorities” and then
set out to create their own evidence in support of it, all for the purpose of
manipulating public opinion and public officials into the role of “protectors
of the innocent.”

Here
in America the strategy was first initiated on a small scale with human rights
commissions at the local level in the 1970s, then at the state level and
finally nationally in conjunction with the current massive leftist campaign to
create a constitutional right to “gay marriage” by judicial fiat. Homosexualist
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy famously struck down the federal Defense
of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor on the grounds that opposition to
homosexual “marriage” was motivated by “animus” (hatred). SCOTUS will likely
use the same false logic when it rules for “gay marriage” this summer (absent a
miraculous intervention by God).

This
dangerous LGBT strategy has now gone global and the target is the Russian
Federation.

To
those who don’t fully recognize the Machiavellian character of the LGBT
movement, or the extent to which the American media (even to an increasing
extent FOX News) has become a sort-of “Gay Pravda,” what I’m about to state may
seem crazy, but bear with me.

Not that it doesn’t also serve
other globalist interests, but I have come to believe that protecting and
advancing the LGBT agenda is the primary reason that Barack Obama orchestrated
the coup to start a civil war in Ukraine. (See this excellent article on the
theme that Obama‘s foreign policy is ideologically-driven, though it doesn‘t
specifically address the homosexual agenda: http://us-russia.org/2934-stratfors-george-friedman-and-realism-in-american-foreign-policy.html.)

To
the Obama administration this is, literally, again literally, what is meant by
“American values,” though most people don’t grasp this and still translate the
phrase to something benign and wholesome such as “Mom and Apple Pie” or the like.
TO BO, core values are not freedom of speech — that’s clearly trumped by “gay
rights” in his world. Nor economic freedom — you can’t run a business that
refuses to bake cakes, take photos, or provide flowers for “gay weddings.” Core
American values to Obama are publicly celebrated sodomy and doctor-assisted
transsexual self-mutilation.

In
this commitment to “gay rights” BO is joined by and represents an ideological
cartel of global elitists who have cooperated together to force it upon the
world. More on that in a later essay.

The Russian anti-propaganda law,
passed June 11, 2013, was the first truly effective international
counter-measure since the "gay" agenda went global around the turn of
the millennium. Typically, the “gays” characterized the law as hateful and an
incitement to violence, but in doing so they revealed that propagandizing
children is part of their agenda, since the law simply classifies
"propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships" as material that
cannot be distributed among minors and commands the government to protect
children from it. http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37129/13-06-27-russia-LA.pdf

Just
after the passage of this law Barack Obama did an about-face on the
"reset" policy (in which Russia had been recognized as an equal
partner in the world community) and instead began reviving cold-war rhetoric.

Nuland
said “F*** the EU,” because it resisted the plan for forced Ukraine regime
change as inimical to it’s business interests but (in my view) the US didn‘t
care because it‘s interests were ideological and punitive.

BO
knew, of course, that Ukraine to the Russians was the strategic equivalent of
Cuba, or even Hawaii, to the US and they could never simply acquiesce to the
transfer of their most critical warm-water port in Crimea and oil interests in
the east to a hostile US-controlled regime.

The
Russians were deliberately pushed into a situation where they could be
portrayed as bullies — rather like the way a couple of “gay” activists set up
the conservative State of Texas as aggressors. They (allegedly) orchestrated
their own arrest for sodomy so they could portray themselves as victims to a
Supreme Court majority (led by Kennedy again) looking for a chance to strike
down the anti-sodomy laws. Thus we got the 2003 Lawrence v Texas ruling, which
was used as the “moral impetus” for the first “gay marriage” law in
Massachusetts in 2004.

Texas
wasn’t breaking down anyone’s door to enforce its sodomy law (any more than the
Russians were aggressing against Ukrainians before the US coup) but was pushed
into doing so by LGBT agents provocateur. No
one produces better agents provocateur than the LGBT movement, which has
presumably been well represented in the US intelligence agencies since Bill
Clinton lifted the ban on top-secret security clearance for “gays” in August
2,1995.

After the Ukraine coup d’etat, BO
and his media stooges then joined with anti-family GOP snake-in-the-grass John
McCain and his fellow neo-cons (and their media stooges) in a relentless
campaign of war propaganda on the theme that Russia is intent on reconstructing
the evil Soviet empire. In just over a year Obama and McCain et al, have turned
Russia into a pariah state in the view of the US and EU sheeple, based on
nothing but disingenuous portrayals of the Ukraine crisis and unsupported
fear-mongering that Russia intends military adventures against the Baltic
states.

And
while we’re on the subject of Republicans, don’t believe for a second that the
GOP establishment is not kowtowing to “gay rights” behind the scenes just as
much as the Dems do it openly. Even under ostensibly pro-family George W. Bush
the State Department was pushing the homosexual agenda around the world. I
personally confronted the diplomatic staff at the US embassy in Riga, Latvia in
2007 for helping to organize a “Gay Pride” parade in defiance of an
overwhelming pro-family majority in that conservative nation.

Back
to Russia. Recently I was interviewed by the BBC for a documentary the
producers said was about “the global culture war.” However, the interview
focused heavily on my reaction to the reports of — Surprise! — an alleged
increase in “anti-gay” violence in countries that have passed laws against
homosexuality” particularly Russia and Uganda These reports (which they never showed
actually showed me) were allegedly prepared by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, the United Nations, and Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG),
bastions of impartiality all. (Btw, SMUG is suing me for “Crimes Against
Humanity” for preaching against homosexuality in their country). http://www.scottlively.net/2012/06/28/my-analysis-of-the-smug-lawsuit/

This
brings us back full circle to the theme of this essay. I told the BBC
interviewer that I did not view any of these sources as trustworthy on the
issue of homosexuality and cited the Matthew Shepard and David Kato murders as
evidence. Indeed, I had already accused Human Rights Watch of indulging in
pro-“gay” propaganda in their first video purporting to show Russian anti-gay
violence (released to coincide with the Olympics), where I exposed the LGBT
movement’s fraud in their characterizations of the Shepard and Kato incidents: http://www.scottlively.net/2014/02/10/the-anti-russian-human-rights-watch-video-is-a-hoax/

So here’s the moment of truth for
pro-family analysts and advocates. Do you really grasp the extent to which LGBT
leaders and activists will go to serve their own interests? You’ve seen what
they do at the street level, against Christian businesses, etc. What would that
deviltry look like on an international level, if, say, the President of the
United States were a “gay” activist?

In
August of 2013 I sent a open letter to President Putin, thanking him for
signing the anti-propaganda law. In it I warned him “not to assume that you
have fully solved the problem by the enactment of this law. The battle to
protect your society from homosexualization has only just begun, and you may be
surprised to discover in the coming months and years just how aggressively many
world leaders will work to try to intimidate and coerce you to capitulate to
homosexualist demands.” http://www.scottlively.net/2013/08/30/an-open-letter-to-president-vladimir-putin/

Regardless
of where one stands on Ukraine or Vladimir Putin, just for a moment consider
where the pro-family movement would be if it hadn't been for the Ukraine coup.
Russia would still be (relatively speaking) a respected member of the
international community offering an alternative, genuinely pro-family model for
social policy. There would likely be at least a half-dozen nations which would
have adopted the anti-propaganda law for themselves (with many more considering
it) and there would be a healthy international debate raging on pro-family vs
LGBT visions for the future. I believe the tide would probably have begun to
turn in our favor, at least on the global scene, if not yet in the US or EU.

Is it really so far-fetched to
believe that morally wicked, Imperialistic, Alinsky-ite Obama (credibly alleged
to be a homosexual himself) started the Ukrainian civil war to punish Russia
for opposing the “core value” of America, the priority of his State Department?
Or (more importantly to the “gays”) to prevent the Russians from leading a
pro-family counter-revolution in the world?

Are
you as a pro-family conservative really going to accept the word of Barack
Obama, John McCain and the mainstream media that Russia is the bad guy in this
story? If you do, you really don’t know your enemy — and I’m not talking about
Putin.

Next
time you hear the implication that Russia has created “a climate of hate and
fear” in Ukraine, Russia or anywhere else, just remember whose go-to strategy
this is for smearing its opponents and how deeply they are entrenched in the
media, the White House and now the GOP establishment as well.